IMPORTANT POINT
The right of a detenu to make a representation against detention and the obligation of the State Government to consider such representation are fundamental under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and failure to do so renders the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 22/6/2023, passed by respondent no. 1-Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in exercise of the power conferred under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA Act') for detaining the petitioner.

2. A perusal of the detention order indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon the incidents referred to in paragraph 8 of the detention order. The detaining authority has relied upon the complaint registered against the petitioner vide CR No. 18 of 2023, dtd. 12/2/2023, registered for offences punishable under Sec. s 385, 386, 323, 504, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with Sec. s 4, 25 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegations against the petitioner in the said CR are that he threatened and assaulted the complainant as he asked for money for taking kebabs from the handcart of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner threatens the public at large by brandishing weapons and creating terror amongst people. Hence, the complaint was registered against him. The detaining authority has further recorded that during the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 19/2/2023 and released on bail on 30/5/2023 as per order dtd. 26/5/2023.

4. The detaining authority has relied upon two in-camera statements. Witness 'A' of the in-camera statement stated that the petitioner, along with his associates, threatened the petitioner for extortion of money. Witness 'B' of the in-camera statement also made similar allegations, that the petitioner and his associates assaulted and abused him for extortion of money. Thus, by relying on the aforesaid CR and the two in-camera statements, the detaining authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person and is required to be detained to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activity in future.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge; however, it is not necessary to examine all the grounds in as much as the petition is required to be allowed on the ground of challenge raised in clause 'X' of paragraph 17 of the petition which reads as under:

<WXY>"X) The Petitioner states and submits that the representation of the petitioner was send on behalf of the Advocate on 19 th July, 2023 which was duly signed and stamped by the Superintendent of Thane central jail including the petitioner signature, the same was hand deliver to the detenu mother and was send through speed post.

Posted by the speed post on: 20/0/2023 Received on 21/07/2023.

The Petition was admitted on 14/09/2023 There is delay of 54 days, the Petitioner says and submits that so far, no communication has been received from the State Government as regards to the consideration of the said representation by the State Government, thereby the State Government has delayed in considering the representation of the Petitioner. All respective authorities are called upon to explain the delay, if any, occurred from the date of representation till today to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court failing which the continued detention will be held illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside."</WXY>

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation dtd. 16/7/2023 sent through his advocate was duly signed and stamped on 19/7/2023. She submitted that the petitioner also signed the same on 19/7/2023, which was submitted by hand delivery by the petitioner's mother. She submitted that the representation was also forwarded to the State Government by post on 20/7/2023, which was received on 21/7/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said representation is not decided by the State Government. Learned counsel,